open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: The Circle of Life
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 ... : last (24)

Author Topic

Arkady Sadik
Minmatar
Electus Matari
Posted - 2010.03.30 22:40:00 - [271]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
On this topic: what are people's thoughts on removing insurance premiums altogether.


Yes please.

The current insurance schemes have two effects:

1) They punish those who PvP only a little or use a great variety of ships

You either insure your ship, and then you "have" to fly it because if you don't lose it until the insurance runs out for the second time, it was wasted ISK. So if you fly a lot of different ships, those you fly rarely won't get insured.

2) They encourage people to lose their ships

As the current base price is higher than the production cost, it actually makes sense to lose the ship and gain insurance. Luckily, this will be fixed with these changes, so this is mute anyhow.


Besides, I don't insure my ships at all because I'm too lazy, so this would be really nice for me Very Happy

Hamish Nuwen
Gallente
Escuadron Federal de Asalto
Posted - 2010.03.30 22:55:00 - [272]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: Larkonis Trassler
Revisions to drop loot tables and ore distribution are great but I'm somewhat concerned about the changes to T2 insurance. What with the finite supply of moongold if you make T2 ships cheaper to lose you will see more people flying them, driving up prices which then adjust insurance payouts etc thus potentially leading to spiralling costs all over the place.


The valuations are clamped to always payout a fraction of the market value of the materials used to manufacture the ships in the case of Tech 2. Yes if the value of those materials increases so does the cost of building the ship and it's market price and the relative insurance payout. The same is true of all ships hence why its called dynamic insurance :).


I also see a potential risk here. The ISK faucet of t2 insurance (especially driven by best ships to insure) rewards that moon material prices go up, but in case of t2 material bottlenecks there is not a elastic demand acting as a counterweight. This suggests a potential inflationary scenario in t2 material bottlenecks in long term.

Henri Rearden
Gallente
VIRTUAL LIFE VANGUARD
Black Star Alliance
Posted - 2010.03.30 23:00:00 - [273]
 

Edited by: Henri Rearden on 30/03/2010 23:06:51
Edited by: Henri Rearden on 30/03/2010 23:01:55
I'm very happy with the proposed changes. I would support removing payouts for death-by-CONCORD, but other than that, excellent! I agree that the payouts for supercapitals should be lower and that great risk should be involved in the deployment of these monsters. They're not supposed to be a dime-a-dozen, nor should they be present in every fleet, nor required for a successful large fleet.

I am very excited about the decrease of Meta 0 loot, and pleased to see the scrap metal and tags. I don't know why everyone is complaining about tags, myself, doesn't anybody realize that more tags = more faction equipment? That sounds fantastic to me, I'm really looking foward to it. Scrap metal sounds more like what you'd actually be able to recover from most wrecks, especially if you didn't have "special equipment" for salvaging from the wreck. I take off my hat to you, CCP! Or, I would, but it's a bit awkward to reach around the cables going into the back of my head... and my hat is a big soggy from capsule fluid. :-)

EDIT: For those worried about spiraling T2 costs... I wouldn't. Once costs get high enough, people will just buy T1 ships, simple as that, right?

Hammerswift Thunder
Caldari
The Graduates
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2010.03.30 23:07:00 - [274]
 

Edited by: Hammerswift Thunder on 30/03/2010 23:16:29
Edited by: Hammerswift Thunder on 30/03/2010 23:10:11
why not make player run insurance co.
corp x buys rights to sell insurance from ccp for x amount ie block of payout isk. with in game isk or ORE mined from the game
then player corp sets isk rate to insure ship vs. payout.and can add things such as if ship is lost to concord there will be no payout!
win for corp x right!
well heres the other kicker if the corp makes bad choices in payout vs income then the next block of insurance isk cost more. getting upto the point of no return the worse they get in loss payouts to stop abuse of the system.
win for ccp isk sink right !
but the corp can offset the rise in the added block cost by buying ore from miners and raters.
win for everyone i think.
this way anyone could be self insured and it would be a real risk vs reward system huge monney to be made insureing a cap ship but you better make good choices or your cost goes up

LHA Tarawa
Posted - 2010.03.30 23:31:00 - [275]
 

Originally by: Hammerswift Thunder
why not make player run insurance co.


From the blog:
"Ship Insurance is our mechanic by which we compensate you for death, essentially. By risking your ship in combat and giving you some compensation to allow you to get back in space and continue fighting whilst ensuring combat and death and the economy that springs from it, is both meaningful and relatively easy to recover from."

Insurance is designed to encourage PVP. It is, by design, intended to be cash flow positive for the PVP'er and therefore, cashflow negative to the provider.

Player provided insurance would basically cost as much as the ship. It is the ONLY way that someone selling insurance could break even.

It the policy pays 1 million ISK, you'd have to charge 1 million ISK premium as it is HIGHLY likely you will have to pay. As soon as the price is that high, it would not be purchased and would no longer serve its purpose of encouraging PVP by repaying a significant portion of the loss.

In short, player provided insurace is the same as no insurance.

BTW: I'm okay with the idea of no insurance. Prices would crash, and PVPers would have to go run like 1 or 2 L4 to make back the loss of a BS. Like today....

Tairon Usaro
The X-Trading Company
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.03.30 23:35:00 - [276]
 

the system of ship value estimation seems all fine

The alpha factor on "strategic value" of a ship is pure non-sense though. Your proposal is just totally arbitrary:T1 100%, T2 20-60% & T3 100% ?!? ... crapp ! This is not the right way to get T3 into business.
1-10% on supercaps ?!? non-sense !! who would care about that symbolic refund ? it just spams a stupid mail !

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2010.03.30 23:47:00 - [277]
 

Originally by: Solo Player
...I simply don't see the logic of rewarding players who lose their ships more often than others...

In that case you fail on a fairly fundamental level in understanding EVE....

The EVE economy LIVES off things being blown up! The more things gets blown up, the more lively the economy gets. If nothing got blown up, EVE really would die!

The more things gets blown up the better, and players who blow up a lot of stuff, or gets blown up a lot, are much more important to the game than people who doesn't. They SHOULD be encouraged to keep doing that!

This is also why no further restrictions should be done on CONCORD kills. Suicide attacks serve a good purpose in EVE (teaching players), and the increase in cost doing so coming from these insurance changes should be enough to regulate it to a manageable level. If not, THEN it can be considered whether to put in further restrictions.
Way fewer people will suicide a battleship when it costs 30m than when it costs 2m...

Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Vahrokh Consulting
Posted - 2010.03.31 00:09:00 - [278]
 

I believe the proposed changes are a good step in the right direction but still not enough.
As long as the resources are truly infinite, the problem will stay open.

1) Roids have again to stop the daily respawn.
Let tritanium daily respawn only in 1.0 and in tiny asteroids that are worth being mined *only* with basic lasers, ie the typical newbie that has no exhumer yet.
The tutorial missions have already been mostly converted to spawn "private" tritanium to give the newbies a chance to find minerals.

That's really all what hi sec should offer. A starting point. Or, at least, a non exploitable never ending minerals faucet.

This would also greatly hamper hi sec macros and botters.


2) Meta 1 and meta 2 drops in missions should be halved, they serve no purpose at really aiding invention success rate and are bad enough that people end up reprocessing them and thus worsen the minerals inflation.

3) Since the number of truly active players (read: those who lose ships) increases at a drastically smaller proportion than the number of pure farmers, one way to reduce minerals extraction could be to reduce the minerals yeld across all the mining ships, by 20-30%.

4) There is always waste in RL production. BPOs should never build at perfect ME, there should be a 10% waste that can be researched (like now) plus 5-8% of fixed additional waste. That would consume extra minerals nicely.



Quote:

Changing the NPC loot tables will impact the missionrunners; some of us don't just mission for isk / LP - some of us use the minerals for manufacturing jobs. Gah - more mining. :(



Quite selfish of yours to want to outmine the specialized profession meant to that.

I am too making freigthers from scratch with the 300k m3 a week of reprocessed material off meta 0 items I get... I also have 2 unused Hulks that besides costing a lot vs the change of being suicide ganked, they yield me less than doing pew pew L4. It's just wrong.

Yaay
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Posted - 2010.03.31 00:23:00 - [279]
 

Insurance should have 5 parts while keeping the current values for ships.

1st part:
Remove all base payouts of ships. You should either be insured, or not. This crap where you pay nothing and still receive a basic value is idiotic.

2nd part:
Insurance degrades over time of a ship. So the closer to a 3 month period of pay the less valuable the insurance payout is. Remember, you're rewarding activity. If a pilot is either so skilled that he doesn't lose a ship, or so inactive that he doesn't use a ship, he shouldn't be rewarded with full insurance. Ships wear and tear, so call it degraded value.

3rd part:
Insurance is based on performance. Someone who loses 7 battleships in a week shouldn't get the same insurace cost every time. Someone who loses 3 ships in a week shouldn't be paying the same insurance that the guy who lost 7 is paying. Yes, you want to encourage activity, but you want to encourage competence too.

Make Performance based on a 7 day span of time. So If I had a really bad week, maybe next week I need to be more cautious or just take a break from violent activities.

4th part.

Self destructs and Deaths by Concord result in 0 insurance payout, and instant points against you per part 3. Why should insurance companies consider rewarding suicides? Shouldn't they be more hesitant in the near future too?

5th part

Completely remove t2 insurance and Capital insurance. Right now If I buy a Revelation off market, insure it and lose it, I basically lose about 200 mil for mods. The ship should cost more like 2 bil for my wallet, but insurance doesn't matter. Put the insurance matters for these ships into the hands of the alliances that use them. Quit promoting capitals online. Also, this just makes sense for t2, as you're not really paying out now anyways. Makes t1 more viable.

Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Vahrokh Consulting
Posted - 2010.03.31 00:24:00 - [280]
 

Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha on 31/03/2010 00:24:54
Quote:

If macros are the problem (and I agree they are), then go after them hard. Reducing the availability of high-sec ores will just crush the non-macros as we can't always be on right after down-time to suck up a share of the mins before they are gone.

Reduce the high-sec mineral respawn, and the only one that gets highsec ore are the macros.



Macros are a problem only because mining is easily macroed.

Roids and ice must be seeded and delivered in dynamic ways that make macroing them very hard.
Just removing roids off hi sec would not be good enough, as macros will just move to 0.0.

Making less roids to cap the daily faucet AND making them hard to macro is a very functional way to nerf macros.
The real players won't have much difficulty moving around and respond to changing dynamics, be it comets or whatever.


Qoi
Exert Force
Posted - 2010.03.31 00:40:00 - [281]
 

The Idea is very good, i hope you can tweak it right.

If it brings back T1 Production to life, really a great side effect!

I think CCP Dr.EyjoG now cannot longer ignore Insurance in his Reports, It's about time that someone tells him how the EVE Economy works.

Nishachara
True Enlightenment
Posted - 2010.03.31 00:55:00 - [282]
 

Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha

Macros are a problem only because mining is easily macroed.



If macros are the problem...and mining is easily macroed...
Could something be added to mining task that cant be macroed...
For example...that you should solve a math problem or type some letters and numbers every time you fire up your mining laser...or something like that, some kind of a minigame maybe...
And explain ti with the need of calibrating mining laser coils or something :P
...
It would serve simmilar purpose as those numbers and letters on registration pages for e-mails and stuff...and it would probably keep away a lot of macros if not all :P
...
just my two isk...
...
I like new insurance changes...just i think it would be bad if t2 and t3 ships would become too cheap to lose,but just a little insurance boost is nice if it must be, i like the adrenalin i feel when i fly expensive ship into battle and loss is severe :D

Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
Posted - 2010.03.31 01:09:00 - [283]
 

Question for CCP:

Would you consider replacing T1-4 intact module drops with something similar found in sleeper wrecks/cans (damaged mods/parts/items) a possible 'T1.5 industry' could use to build T1-4 meta items?

Love the changes, would have liked to see insurance removal for Concord-Kills though.. but it goes into the right direction at least.

Kethry Avenger
PIE Inc.
Posted - 2010.03.31 01:13:00 - [284]
 

Originally by: Tres Farmer

Question for CCP:

Would you consider replacing T1-4 intact module drops with something similar found in sleeper wrecks/cans (damaged mods/parts/items) a possible 'T1.5 industry' could use to build T1-4 meta items?




That would be awesome. Make mining and drones the only source of minerals, and give mission runners a way to earn income that wouldn't imbalance other markets.

LHA Tarawa
Posted - 2010.03.31 01:18:00 - [285]
 

Originally by: Qoi
If it brings back T1 Production to life, really a great side effect!


Not going to happen. This is not an across the board nerf of T1 drops. It is a nerf on the rate of drop of the few items that result in the majority of reprocessed minerals... from my experience, that means BS rat drops of large turrets, 1600 plate, 100mn AB and MWD, heavy cap booster, large shield extenders.... stuff like that.

Sturmwolke
Posted - 2010.03.31 01:26:00 - [286]
 

Hmmm ... so in a nutshell ..

Kick some low-end supply, then kick some high-end supply to affect a general drop in global mineral supply for BOTH ends. IF assuming demand is healthy, the expected drop to a new mineral basket floor (with the insurance changes) may not be realized at all.

On the otherhand, IF demand is weak or non-moving, then the mineral prices will drop across the board until it self-corrects to the new basket level. This is not a problem as long as the new basket level it corrects TO is more or less at par or greater than the current status quo ... otherwise, mining will suck even more, which is really not what's intended, yes?

Introduce changes to some ores that increases its low-end mineral content. This returns back some low-end minerals into global circulation. Intended result, mineral prices are consistent with the ores from which they come from and the roids are at their proper place in the chart, hopefully.

To conclude :

* Betting that players will want to mine these low-sec/0.0 roids for the extra income from the low-ends. That's a big bet imo. Whether worthwhile or not, it will boil down to WHICH ore and WHAT ratio. It will reduce pressure on the low-ends for low-sec/0.0 production (and the pressure on logistics for moving those stuffs). Worse case, this might make trit near worthless as highsec is currently the main exporter.

* Tying the supply side to the demand side in a dynamic equilibrium. Meaning there's a finite amount of miners out there busting roids for so-and-so demand before you get into oversupply (both low, med and high ends). When you get into a general oversupply with low, med and high ends, the excess drops the mineral basket floor making mining a less than worthwhile activity. Since the mineral basket floor is dynamic (from insurance change), I'd say mining may yet still suck balls in the long term, with pressure from macrominers/afkers.

* So in effect, what's really being corrected here is the ratio in pricing between low-med-high end minerals to reflect the ores from which they come from.

Zendoren
Aktaeon Industries
The Black Armada
Posted - 2010.03.31 01:27:00 - [287]
 

Edited by: Zendoren on 31/03/2010 01:30:09
After reading this devblog, I have to say that I am a little scared. I do have a few questions.


1. Doesn't this change to the insurance system go against the Credo of non-interference from CCP? You stated that, "To this we have added the ability for us to define more precisely how much of the total material value of each ship class should be paid out." Judging by how the system will work, CCP will have to manipulate payout prices for T-2 and T-3 ships so that its value will correspond more closely with the replacement build cost. This causes me grave concern, as stated the payout for particular ships will be judged by a CCP employee.


2. Concerning the insurance system and the contract system. As the system is now, a corporation can insure a ship and allow corporation/alliance members the use of the ship for a period time specified in the contract. I have a couple of questions under this system.

a) Will CCP fix the issue of allowing people to "re-insure" contracted ships. As the system is now, once the ship is in the hands of the corp/alliance pilot, they can re-insure the ship thus breaking the previous insurance with the corporation allowing the pilot to cheat the corp/alliance out of the insurance payout.

b) Will CCP allow corporations higher payouts on corporation insured ships with the new system? Currently, if the new system is implemented, the game mechanic (the ability to loan ships thru the contract system) which enables corporations to have a working and accountable ship replacement policy system will be broken. For example, I would like to be able to loan capital ships out to corp/alliance pilots with a 100% return payout (allowing the corporations to field more pilots in fleet engagements thus opening more and different aspects of EVE that ordinary pilots/corp/alliance would not have be able to experience) As a caveat that could be implemented, I'm sure most corporations would gladly pay a monthly premium to allow corporate insured ships to have a guaranteed 100% payout at premium levels (especially for capital ships).

Thanks,
Zen

Paddlefoot Aeon
SiN. Corp
Daisho Syndicate
Posted - 2010.03.31 01:30:00 - [288]
 


Here is what I want to see:

IF CONCORD IS ON YOUR KILLMAIL, YOU GET NO INSURANCE..... PERIOD

While this will not eliminate suicide ganking, it will ensure that the cost of the lost ship will have to make the target worthwhile. With some battleships and a basic T1 fit... you can gank haulers at almost no-cost.

It shouldn't be worth your while to kill a hauler carrying between 50 and 100 mil worth of stuff.... but with the current insurance system, it is.

LHA Tarawa
Posted - 2010.03.31 01:30:00 - [289]
 

Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
1) Roids have again to stop the daily respawn.
Let tritanium daily respawn only in 1.0 and in tiny asteroids that are worth being mined *only* with basic lasers, ie the typical newbie that has no exhumer yet.



I could not disagree more strongly.

What is the goal? Make all the high sec carebears quit the game? You can't force them to play the game, so you can not force them to play the game the way you want them to play the game. Try to force them to play the game the way you want them to, they will just quit. That is in no one's best interest.

I think a MUCH better way of dealing with excess supply of minerals is to give players more things to build.

If insurance stops being an unlimited ISK faucet, perhaps we wouldn't need things like POS structures as a constant ISK sink.

Kenpachi Viktor
Gradient
Electus Matari
Posted - 2010.03.31 01:36:00 - [290]
 

Originally by: Kethry Avenger
Originally by: Tres Farmer

Question for CCP:

Would you consider replacing T1-4 intact module drops with something similar found in sleeper wrecks/cans (damaged mods/parts/items) a possible 'T1.5 industry' could use to build T1-4 meta items?




That would be awesome. Make mining and drones the only source of minerals, and give mission runners a way to earn income that wouldn't imbalance other markets.


I'd like to see Drones drop more salvage, and less minerals.

SXYGeeK
Gallente
do you
Posted - 2010.03.31 01:45:00 - [291]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis

On this topic: what are people's thoughts on removing insurance premiums altogether. We looked at and will continue to look at this in the future speculatively as its not a huge step to account for premium removal now and cause less pain for you folks in remembering to insure your ships.

In this case you would then only get a single payout per ship always on death with caveats in the future which might affect this like concordokken for example and never need to insure the ship.

To give you some data: 75% of ships that were insured were platinum. Most ships were not insured with only battlecruisers, battleships and dreadnoughts being the most insured groups as a % of the total for each group.




This Idea is WIN!
The times i have lost ships where i would have been aided by insurance it was unexpected and I hadn't had them insured.
the majority of my ships aren't insured as i don't tend to lose them lots.
It's always struck me as odd that the insurance system seems to be primarily used by suicide ganks, I'd love to see concord kills invalidate the insurance as well, but that's another topic.

Shepard Book
Posted - 2010.03.31 01:45:00 - [292]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On this topic: what are people's thoughts on removing insurance premiums altogether.


I am against this idea and those that think if concord is on your mail you should get none. I think both ideas would be a huge mistake in the long run for CCP. Nerfing captital or super capital insurance would also encourage even more blobbing.

We already know most people in this game fly in squads or more. These new elements would make it even worse for solo and small gang pilots.

Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2010.03.31 01:45:00 - [293]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
On this topic: what are people's thoughts on removing insurance premiums altogether. We looked at and will continue to look at this in the future speculatively as its not a huge step to account for premium removal now and cause less pain for you folks in remembering to insure your ships.

I'd say get rid of it.

Haven't used it for ages as all it does is make ship logistics more difficult and push me to getting a ship blown up before the term ends.

Besenyei
Posted - 2010.03.31 01:54:00 - [294]
 

Originally by: LHA Tarawa
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
1)

I think a MUCH better way of dealing with excess supply of minerals is to give players more things to build.



And who is going to buy all these nice shiny new things. As many manufacturers can attest to, there is no market currently, and those who have any brains have shut up shop. Oversupply of minerals, oversupply of T1 modules, oversupply of just about everything. Shuttles are going for 5000 isk, you cannot even buy the tritanium for that, and that is just 1 item off the top of my head to illustrate just how whacked out things are currently.

Miners have a vested interest in the relative price of minerals, its how they make their isk, mission runners on the other hand do not give a rats about mineral prices and flood the market with cheep minerals. Taking away minerals from mission runners is a very big step in the right direction.

Missions should be about bounties, LP and salvage, missions already get 3 income streams from missioning and they do not need minerals as well.

Mining should be about mineral generation with the ability to value add with manufacturing T1 stuff.

I think CCP has taken a great step forward with the changes proposed and i hope that it goes a long way to re-balancing the markets as a whole.

Kayllyn
Cutting Edge Incorporated
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.03.31 02:07:00 - [295]
 

Edited by: Kayllyn on 31/03/2010 02:08:30
While I support the changes, by removing meta 0 drops like 425mm railguns from the drop tables the average ratter in 0.0 will be even worse off than they are now compared to the average mission runner. As it stands someone who lives in empire running level 4 missions will make better isk when storyline missions and lp are taken into account. One of the ways that helped make up the some of the difference were all the meta 0 drops from belt/anomaly rats.

Unfortunately now it seems that the risk versus reward of living in 0.0 will be even more out of whack with empire folks. For a self proclaimed hypercapitalist pvp oriented game like eve, this really needs to be addressed. When you're looking at boosting mining, make sure null sec mining gets a huge bonus, as practically the only reason anyone does it right now is for AFK isk. Second, make sure that you compensate the average people in 0.0 so that there is a good profit motive for the individual to move to null sec and get out of empire. For the last time, stop letting level 4s be the game breaking isk and mineral faucets they are right now without any risk at all. Addressing the mineral side is only a partial solution.

Also I love the idea of not having to pay premiums, it is an annoyance to manage the different insurance policies on all of my ships and all the ******ed mails I get from them. Streamline it!

El Mauru
Amarr
Interwebs Cooter Explosion
Important Internet Spaceship League
Posted - 2010.03.31 02:08:00 - [296]
 

Sounds like good changes to me- esp. the t-2 insurance changes should make it at least borderline worthwhile to insure now.

I also totally agree with the insurance nerf to capitals/supercaps - it will finally make deploying caps a "big thing" again instead of the rush'n'drop thing that's going on at the moment - though I'm a tad afraid of the downside of it which I perceive to be an increase in "sure-fire"-tactics aka blobbing.

Now if only the duration of insurance was increased by another 2-3 months so people who switch between ship-types/locations have more of an incentive to insure everything would be vanilla-pink for me.

YES- I LIKE VANILLA PINK Embarassed

I fail to see any gameplay-value in the running-out of insurance anyway...

Kayllyn
Cutting Edge Incorporated
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2010.03.31 02:14:00 - [297]
 

Originally by: El Mauru
I also totally agree with the insurance nerf to capitals/supercaps - it will finally make deploying caps a "big thing" again instead of the rush'n'drop thing that's going on at the moment - though I'm a tad afraid of the downside of it which I perceive to be an increase in "sure-fire"-tactics aka blobbing.



Deploying capitals is a big thing. And for people who actually enjoy capital fights, there is little reason to use them right now. We can't even deploy them well against BS fleets anymore because of the ******ed change to Dreadnought tracking. That at least used to be an option for escalation when their BS gang was much larger than what you had online. Now it is whoever has the biggest blob wins and the other side stands down or has grid fail.

And no one wants to go back to the days of only seeing titans warp in for DDs and otherwise only sitting on poses to JB fleets. Or at least that degree of not fielding supercaps.

Ira Theos
Posted - 2010.03.31 02:37:00 - [298]
 

1) There should be NO INSURANCE ON ANYTHING!!
Anything more is just "Hello Kitty".

2) Minerals should come from mining. Yields from recycling should be minimal.

Fellhahn
Posted - 2010.03.31 02:49:00 - [299]
 

Does insurance currently take into account any rigs fitted to ships when taking out a policy?

If not could it be made too? Sometimes it's the rigs lost rather than the ship that can really bork you.

Obviously policies would have to be voided upon any rig change to avoid exploits.

Terranid Meester
Tactical Assault and Recon Unit
Posted - 2010.03.31 02:52:00 - [300]
 

Originally by: Nick Curso



Has it also been considered how much of a time sink it is to build super caps from a non ISK perspective such as compression time/hauling/build time etc. In some cases ppl have worked for years to get these ships and contrary to the myth don't have 100's of bils in the bank after the ship purchase.



Sounds like you just want your cake and to eat it. Don't fly what you cannot afford to lose etc. Outposts are strategic assets too, you don't get insurance when you lose them (or outpost eggs).


Pages: first : previous : ... 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 ... : last (24)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only